coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Hatay.
5.  On 15 September 1993 the applicant bought a plot of land (plot no. 1241), near the coast in Hatay. The land was registered in the applicant’s name in the Land Registry. She built a house there.
6.  On 4 July 1995 the Treasury brought an action before the Samandağ Court of First Instance, requesting the annulment of the applicant’s title deed to the land on the ground that it was located within the coastal area.
7.  On 16 December 1999 the Samandağ Court of First Instance upheld the Treasury’s request and decided to annul the title deed of the applicant to the plot of land. In its decision, the court held that, pursuant to domestic law, coastal areas could not be subject to private ownership and that, therefore, the applicant could not rely on the argument that she had acted bona fides.
8.  On 16 May 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. On 14 January 2002 a request by the applicant for rectification was rejected by the Court of Cassation.
4.  The applicants were born in 1956 and live in Bad Neuenahr.
5.  On 28 September 1989 Apartment 14, 108 Turda Street, Bucharest, the applicants’ property, was seized by the State under Decree no. 223/1974, with payment of compensation, following their decision to leave the country. In appears from the file that the applicants received 131,538 Romanian Lei in compensation.
6.  On 14 November 1996 the R.V. company, a State-owned company responsible for the management of property belonging to the State, sold the flat to the then tenants, under Law no. 112/1995.
7.  On 29 November 1996 the Bucharest Regional Court, by a final decision, allowed an action by the applicants, annulled the seizure as being unlawful and ordered restitutio in integrum.
8.  On 5 September 1997 the Bucharest Town Council ordered restitutio in integrum of the apartment and on 15 September 1997 informed the R.V. company of this.
9.  On 14 May 2001 the Bucharest Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed the action lodged by the Town Council and joined by the applicants against both the R.V. company and the former tenants of the apartment, to have the sale declared null and void. The court considered that the sale had complied with the provisions of Law no. 112/1995 and had been made in good faith. It also stated that the applicants would receive compensation under Law no. 10/2001.
10.  On 25 July and 14 November 2001 the applicants claimed restitution in kind of the apartment under the Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. So far they have not received any answer.
11.  On 27 February 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed an application (recurs în anulare) by the Procurator-General, acting at the instance of the applicants, to have the judgment of 14 May 2001 quashed on the grounds that it was contrary to the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention and to the principle of legal certainty. The court considered that the sale had been made in good faith and observed that the principle of legal certainty had not been infringed, as the sale had preceded the final judgment which ordered restitutio in integrum and, moreover, the former tenants had not been parties in that set of proceedings, therefore the final judgment was not opposable by them.
4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Timişoara.
5.  In 1950, a building situated in Timişoara, Spl. N. Titulescu no. 7, which was the property of the applicant’s husband and mother-in-law, was seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation.
6.  On 26 May 1999 by a final decision the Timişoara Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) allowed an action by the applicant for rectification in the Land Register, acknowledged that the nationalisation of the building had been unlawful and ordered restitutio in integrum through the registration of the applicant’s right of property. It considered that the fact that some apartments in the building had been bought by the tenants had no influence on the solution, as the object of the proceedings was the validity of the State’s title and the titles of the buyers were therefore to be evaluated in another set of proceedings.
7.  On 30 September and 30 November 1999 the Timişoara Town Council certified in an official record signed by the applicant that the latter had been allowed to take possession of the building, made up of thirty-one apartments, and of 29.28 sq. m piece of appurtenant land.
8.  On 26 January 2000 the applicant sold flat no. 11 of the building to M.M. and M.D.
9.  On 27 April 2000 O.E., the then tenant of flat no. 11, requested the court to declare the sale null and void, as on 16 January 1997 she had bought that flat from the State under Law no. 112/1995. She also claimed the registration of her right of property in the Land Register.
The applicant lodged a counterclaim requesting the court to declare the sale by the State null and void.
10.  On 20 November 2001 by a final decision the Court of Appeal declared the sale made by the applicant null and void, as it contravened O.E.’s rights, and dismissed the claim by O.E. to register her right of property, as she had not expressly applied to remove the applicant’s title from the Land Register. It also dismissed the applicant’s request for the rescission of the sale by the State on the grounds that O.E. had made the purchase in good faith.
11.  On 4 November 2002 by a final decision the Court of Appeal allowed O.E.’s action for rectification in the Land Register, registered her right of property in respect of flat no. 11 and removed the applicant’s title from the Land Register. The court compared the land titles and considered that the sale by the State had complied with the provisions of Law no. 112/1995 and that O.E. had made the purchase in good faith.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Hajdúsámson.
5.  On 2 May 1989 the applicant filed for divorce. She also requested the division of the matrimonial property.
6.  After having pronounced the parties’ divorce in a partial decision, having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts, on 9 November 1994 the Debrecen District Court adopted a decision on the property. This was reversed by the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court on 20 June 1996. On 24 June 1997 the Supreme Court’s review bench quashed this decision and remitted the case to the second-instance court.
7.  In the resumed second-instance proceedings, the Regional Court held a hearing and quashed the District Court’s decision on 27 October 2000.
8.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, on 5 June 2001 the District Court adopted a new decision concerning the property. This was reversed by the Regional Court on 23 November 2001.
9.  On 10 November 2004 a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court’s review bench examined the respondent’s petition for review on the merits. It held that the taking of evidence in the case had been comprehensive and without a fault and that the applicant’s petition did not disclose a breach of the relevant law. It therefore upheld the Regional Court’s judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 30 October 2001 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, following an application lodged by the applicant on 21 July 1995 (Kanbur v. Turkey, no. 28291/95) concerning the length of criminal proceedings brought against him for his membership of Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). By then the proceedings had lasted for over nineteen years. The Court awarded the applicant 100,000 French francs (approximately 15,000 euros) in compensation.
6.  At the time of the Court’s judgment, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending before the Ankara Assize Court.
7.  The facts of the case thereafter, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
8.  On 14 May 2002 the applicant attended a hearing before the Ankara Assize Court, gave a statement and submitted the Court’s judgment of 30 October 2001 in order to ensure that his case would be heard within a reasonable time.
9.  On 16 July 2002 the Assize Court sentenced the applicant to death, and then commuted his sentence to life imprisonment. The judgment was subject to appeal.
10.  In the meantime in October 2001, Article 38 of the Constitution was amended so that the death penalty could no longer be ordered or implemented other than in time of war or of imminent threat of war, or for acts of terrorism. Subsequently, by Law no. 4771, which was published on 9 August 2002, the Turkish Grand National Assembly resolved, inter alia, to abolish the death penalty in peacetime.
11.  On 28 May 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on the ground that the death penalty had been abolished during the course of the proceedings.
12.  On 23 December 2004 the Ankara Assize Court resumed the trial. On that day it ordered, in absentia, the provisional detention of the applicant in order to secure a statement from him.
13.  On 27 December 2004 the Ankara Assize Court heard a statement from the applicant as regards the state of the case and revoked the detention order as having served its purpose. Subsequently, the Ankara Assize Court held thirteen more hearings.
14.  On 3 October 2006, at its fourteenth hearing, the Ankara Assize Court delivered its judgment and sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment pursuant to Article 146 of the Criminal Code.
15.  According to the information made available to the Court by the parties to date, the case is apparently still pending before the Court of Cassation.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 26 July 1991 the applicant brought an action against an insurance company seeking compensation for injuries she had suffered in a road traffic accident. The dispute essentially concerned the amount of compensation payable.
6.  After having obtained two expert opinions and held numerous hearings, on 5 November 1997 the Budapest Regional Court gave judgment. On 9 March 2000 the Supreme Court quashed this decision.
7.  In the resumed proceedings, on 5 February 2002 the Budapest Regional Court awarded the applicant 8.2 million Hungarian forints (HUF) in compensation in addition to a monthly allowance.
8.  On 28 April 2004 the Supreme Court’s appellate bench amended this decision, reducing the award. This judgment was final and served on 28 June 2004.
9.  On 14 September 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for rectification of the judgment holding that her allegations related to the assessment of facts rather than any clerical error.
10.  In a preliminary examination under section 273 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 1 October 2004 the Supreme Court’s review bench refused to deal with the merits of the applicant’s petition for review. In essence, it relied on section 270 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force during the relevant period, according to which a review of the substantive unlawfulness of final decisions was only admissible if a review was considered necessary from the perspective of harmonising or developing the application of the law. This decision was served on 3 November 2004.
11.  In 2005 the applicant filed another action, introducing further compensation claims. On 31 May 2007 the Budapest Regional Court awarded her HUF 19.6 million. The Budapest Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. Its decision was served on the applicant on 21 February 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Budapest.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be submitted as follows.
6.  The applicant lived in conjugal community with S.S. During their relationship, S.S. gave birth to a boy on 24 June 1998. The child was registered under his mother’s family name. For the first five months the couple raised the child together. Subsequently, the relationship deteriorated and the applicant left their common home.
7.  Since the applicant’s parental status had not been resolved legally, he repeatedly initiated proceedings for an official declaration of paternity (teljes hatályú apai elismerő nyilatkozat). However, the mother refused to give her consent to the statement, which is required by law for such a statement to be valid. Moreover, the mother has not allowed the applicant to see the child at all.
8.  In January 2000 the applicant brought an action against the child and the mother before the Pest Central District Court asking the court to establish paternity.
9.  Between April 2000 and July 2001 the District Court held five unsuccessful hearings, which the mother did not attend despite a fine being imposed on her. The District Court sought assistance from the police in order to secure her presence at the hearings but to no avail.
10.  In November 2001 a medical expert examined the applicant and the child. The expert could not establish with complete certainty whether the applicant was the father of the child or not, but she “believed it probable”.
11.  In the meantime, a third individual, G.N., made a formal declaration of paternity which was accepted by the mother. Since the paternal status had been resolved, the District Court terminated the proceedings in January 2002.
12.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the District Court in April 2002.
13.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court suspended the procedure and initiated a constitutional review of the applicable legal provisions to be applied in December 2002.
14.  According to the information submitted by the parties, the case is still pending before the Constitutional Court and consequently before the District Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Antalya.
5.  The applicant owns a flat in Antalya. Based on a construction permit issued by the Antalya Municipality on 14 February 1991, construction works were commenced on neighbouring land to build an apartment block. The limitations concerning the height of the building were not respected and, as a result, the sea view from the applicant’s flat, which is situated on the sixth floor, was blocked by the new building.
6.  On an unspecified date, the applicant initiated administrative proceedings against the Antalya Municipality for the annulment of the construction permit. He maintained that the permit was in breach of city planning regulations. On 27 June 1995 the Antalya Administrative Court found in the applicant’s favour and annulled the construction permit. On 13 March 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Antalya Administrative Court.
7.  The applicant asked the Antalya Municipality to enforce the decision of the Antalya Administrative Court, but his request was rejected.
8.  On 18 October 1998 the applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the Antalya Administrative Court on account of the Municipality’s failure to implement the court order of 13 March 1996. He requested both pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation, stating that the non-enforcement of the final court decision which had annulled the construction permit had diminished his flat’s value.
9.  On 19 November 1998 the Antalya Administrative Court partially upheld the applicant’s claim, awarding him pecuniary compensation, but refusing non-pecuniary damages.
10.  On 26 April 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Antalya Administrative Court’s decision in respect of pecuniary damage. However, finding that the applicant was also entitled to non-pecuniary compensation, it quashed the judgment in this respect. Subsequent to this decision, the Municipality paid the pecuniary compensation to the applicant.
11.  On 1 November 2000 the Antalya Administrative Court awarded 250,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
12.  On 16 April 2002, considering the amount of non-pecuniary compensation insufficient, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the Antalya Administrative Court once again.
13.  On 19 December 2002 the Antalya Administrative Court insisted on maintaining its judgment. The applicant appealed.
14.  On 16 June 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the Antalya Administrative Court of 19 December 2002.
15.  On 29 December 2005 the Antalya Administrative Court adhered to the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court and awarded the applicant TRL 1,000,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary compensation with statutory interest running from 18 October 1996.
16.  On 27 June 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal of the Municipality. The Municipality paid the due amount to the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 10 March 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the TIKB (the Revolutionary Communist Union of Turkey).
6.  On 13 March 1998 he was brought before the public prosecutor and then the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. The latter remanded him in custody on the same day.
7.  On 17 March 1998 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, charging the applicant with membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
8.  Between 25 March 1998 and 21 March 2001, the court held nineteen hearings. During these hearings the Istanbul Security Court, relying on the state of the evidence, the nature of the offence, and the duration of his detention, refused to release the applicant.
9.  On 21 March 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court pronounced its judgment and convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment under Article 168 of the Criminal Code.
10.  On 8 August 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed this judgment. The case was accordingly remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court.
11.  On 17 September 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court resumed the trial. During the subsequent hearings, the court rejected the applicant’s requests for release, having regard to the state of the evidence.
12.  At the hearing on 1 June 2003, the applicant’s lawyer once again requested the court to release the applicant. In her submissions, she also drew attention to the psychological state and treatment of the applicant. The court rejected this request. An appeal lodged in that connection was also dismissed by a further court on 28 August 2003.
13.  By Law no. 5190, in June 2004 State Security Courts were abolished. Subsequently, the Istanbul Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the case.
14.  On 25 October 2004 the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to release the applicant. On 1 November 2004 the applicant was released pending trial.
15.  According to the information made available to the Court by the parties to date, the case is apparently still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Budapest.
5.  In April 1997 the applicant bought a flat from a private individual, S.M. The seller stipulated that she had the right to buy back the property until 30 July 1997. However, she was not able to exercise this right because of the lack of sufficient means.
6.  In September 1997 the Land Registry registered the applicant’s property rights on the flat. Subsequently, the applicant requested S.M. to let him have possession. Since S.M. was reluctant to leave the flat, the applicant requested the Gödöllő District Court to order the execution of the purchase contract – which had been concluded by a notary public (közjegyzői okirat) and, therefore, was executable as a final court judgment. The District Court issued the order on 10 November 1997.
7.  Subsequently, S.M. brought an action against the applicant before the Gödöllő District Court, requesting the court to establish the invalidity of the purchase contract and to order the termination of its execution. In April 1998 the District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action. On appeal, in October 1998 the Pest County Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision.
8.  S.M. requested that the case be reopened. The Gödöllő District Court suspended the execution of the purchase contract. The applicant appealed. The Pest County Regional Court reversed the first-instance decision and ordered the continuation of the execution in April 1999. Subsequently, S.M.’s request to reopen the case was dismissed. In May 1999 S.M. again requested the suspension of the execution, but the District Court dismissed her request.
9.  In the meantime, the applicant was charged with the forgery of the contract in question. In view of the ongoing criminal proceedings, the Gödöllő District Court suspended the execution of the contract on 15 July 1999. In May 2003 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, acquitted the applicant. On 12 June 2004 the applicant requested the continuation of the execution. On 13 July 2004 the District Court accepted the applicant’s claim. The Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision on 21 October 2004.
10.  According to the information available in the case file, the execution proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Dolgoprudnyy, a town in the Moscow region.
5.  On 7 April 2000 the Head of Dolgoprudnyy Town Administration, K., held a meeting with heads of departments where he stated that the applicant was planning the murder of his (K.’s) son-in-law and had hired a killer for this purpose. That statement was not included in the minutes of the meeting.
6.  On 14 April 2000 a local newspaper published an article under the title “The hirer of a killer lives peacefully in Dolgoprudnyy and is going to become a minister”. The article contained, inter alia, the same statement as disseminated by K. at the meeting.
7.  On 25 April 2000 the applicant brought a libel action against K., editors and founders of the newspaper and an author of the article.
8.  On 28 January 2003 Dolgoprudnenskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region (“the Town Court”) granted his claim in part. The court ordered the newspaper to publish a retraction of the statement made in the article. The court also ordered the founders of the newspaper to pay the applicant 30,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs in the amount of RUB 7,650, instead of the RUB 108,000 claimed by the applicant. The court dismissed the claim against K. It found that on 24 December 1999 a certain L. had stated to the Department of Federal Security that he had been hired by the applicant to kill K.’s son-in-law. Since the competent authorities did not take any measures in this connection, K. had good reasons to take them on his own. The court was satisfied that his statement at the meeting with the heads of departments was merely aimed at securing the safety of his family and that he had no intention of offending the applicant. Furthermore, the statement had not been reflected in the minutes of the meeting and was not otherwise made public.
9.  Both parties appealed against the judgment to the Moscow Regional Court (“the Regional Court”).
10.  On 28 May 2003 the President of the Town Court sent the case file to the Regional Court. The accompanying letter stated that the appeal hearing was scheduled for 10 a.m. on 18 June 2003. The applicant and his representative were included in the list of addressees. The applicant’s address was indicated correctly. However, according to the applicant, he did not receive that letter or any other notification of the appeal hearing.
11.  In October 2003 the applicant called the Registry of the Moscow Regional Court in order to inquire about the date of the appeal hearing. He was informed that the hearing had already taken place.
12.  Later, the applicant received a copy of the appeal decision of the Regional Court, which was dated 16 June 2003. By that decision the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 28 January 2003. It followed from the decision that the Regional Court had not verified whether the applicant had been duly summonsed to the hearing.